Thoughts on money and how life is like the game Monopoly

We all need it, but the way the system works today is that if this money is to be available to pay workers, it has to come from someone or some thing
that already has it. The problem with this scenario is that whoever or whatever has the money right now might not want what the workers have to
give no matter how important it is to the workers to be able to make a living and share each other's talents and creativity.

The problems we are seeing today are manifestations of a game that works as a closed system. There is no source of money that goes directly to
workers, because our banking system only creates money as a loan, a debt. This is called "monetizing debt." Those best at this game (or in an
advantageous position in it - in other words, the "banker") can end up with all the chips, all the tokens, all the property, or whatever just like
the game of monopoly.

Where is everybody supposed to go once all the property has been acquired by the few? And what jobs would be available then, except the employment of
those who are to aid the rich in protecting their wealth from being taken by the masses?

Perhaps the solution can be found while contemplating the fact that money has to be taken from someone else to be given to another.

What if....

What if money could be created, as necessary, for those willing to work? Then an appeal wouldn't have to be made to the rich to share their money so
that there would be something for the poor to be paid with.

This idea is called "social credit." It allows the public at large to do something that is in a very specific way different from the
way things are done now: it allows them to monetize value instead of monetizing debt.

By using social credit to make funds available to entrepreneurs, labor groups, local governments, businesses, and individuals, the stranglehold on
supply that plagues recessions and depressions could be lifted. Unemployment would virtually cease, and the benefits created by everyone being able
to contribute value to the world would transform society in tremendously positive ways in the long run.

Dude. isn't it weird that you and I posted these similar posts at the same time? I'm the one who posted, "Socialism. Why not?" Please read my post
and feel free to add anything that you think would be useful.

Your post exceeds my current understanding of economics. Perhaps I will read the links tomorrow, but it's getting late now and I have to go to bed so
I won't be able to tonight.

the system is exactly like monopoly as a player gets money from the box/banker to start they then buy up as much as possible to make more money and
ultimately win the game. however when the game is over all the money and properties go back into the box/banker.what a system we live with.

In the biblical days they had a Day of Jubilee where all previous debts were forgiven every 70 years. Those seeking to control Boardwalk and
ParkPlace with hotels do not expect to have to forgive debts they expect you (us) to pay. That being said (Monopoly Game analogy) there is a conflict
between the Labor theory of value and the Capital theory of value. One holds that labor (work) is rented and paid for with money which is used by
most (esp those hand to mouth) as more of a medium of exchange and standard of value than a store of value per se while the other (capital) has a
tendency to fluctuate the value of money (from cheap to dear) by tying it to the cost of money (ie interest rates). One problem with the current
scenario where money is made cheaper tho (period of low interest rates) is that the concomitant increase in the money supply is not circulating to the
workers; it is being hoarded by the bankers and primarily used for buying up cheap assets which would benefit from a period of cheap money at the
expense of savers and workers alike.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.